Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sushil Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 May, 2024
Author: Vishal Dhagat
Bench: Vishal Dhagat
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
ON THE 16 th OF MAY, 2024
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 3051 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI KALYAN
CHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O SARAFA CHOWK
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT NARAMADAPURAM
HOSHANGABAD) M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SUBODH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI KALYAN
CHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O SARAFA CHOWK,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM
(HOSHANGABAD) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. ASHISH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI KALYAN
CHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O SARAFA CHOWK,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM
(HOSHANGABAD) (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. MANISH KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE SHRI KALYAN
CHAND JAIN, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O SARAFA CHOWK,
TAHSIL AND DISTRICT NARMADAPURAM
(HOSHANGABAD) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI SOURABH KUMR TIWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE
STATION NARMADAPURAM DISTRICT
NARAMADAPURAM M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI S. K. SHRIVASTAVA - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This revision coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR
DUBEY
Signing time: 5/17/2024
2:38:25 PM
2
following:
ORDER
1. Applicants have filed this revision under Section 397/401 against
the order dated 2.8.2022 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge,
Narmadapuram in Criminal Appeal Nos. 126/2019 and 128/2006 and against the
judgment and findings dated 25.11.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Narmadapuram in Criminal Case No. 1600428/2007.
2. Learned counsel appearing for applicants submitted that applicants are
facing criminal litigation since 2005 and were subjected to physical, mental and
economical strains since last more than 18 years. They had already suffered a
lot during the process of their conviction and filing of revision. It is submitted
that there was dispute between the parties in respect of petty matter. Looking
to the nature of offence and the fact that applicants have suffered lot and they
are now in advance stages of their life, in these circumstances, it will be
appropriate to release the applicants under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. instead
of sentencing them to jail after such a long period.
3. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the State opposed the
revision and submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court in
convicting and sentencing the applicants. Applicants used lathis in assault. Trial
Court was liberal in punishing the applicants only under Section 325 of the IPC.
Assault was made with force and lethal. In these circumstances, no leniency is
shown to applicants by releasing them on probation or under Section 360 of the
Cr.P.C.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5 . In the present case, incident has occurred in the year 2005, and
since then applicants have suffered the proceedings for more than 18 years.
There is no material on record that the applicants were involved in any other
offence during the last more than 18 years, therefore, in terms of Section 360 of
Cr.P.C., I deem it appropriate to release the applicants on probation of good
conduct .
7. Applicants be released on furnishing a personal bond with sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each along with surety before trial
Court to maintain peace, good behaviour and conduct in society for a period of
one year.
8. With aforesaid, revision filed by the applicants is hereby disposed
off.
9. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record
for information and compliance.
(VISHAL DHAGAT)
JUDGE
AD/
